Photo by Shannon Finney via Flickr

The sweeping preliminary injunction issued by Judge John G. McConnell in Rhode Island v. Trump marked a victory for the fight against President Trump’s executive order that sought to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The federal lawsuit, filed by 21 state attorneys general, challenged the March 14 executive order that put most of IMLS’s staff members on administrative leave and canceled or failed to fund grants and contracts. The administration’s Deputy Secretary of Labor, Keith E. Sonderling, was subsequently installed as the agency’s acting director.

Under the preliminary injunction, issued by McConnell on May 13, the administration is ordered to return all IMLS staff to work and to reinstate some of the terminated grants, and “shall not take any further actions to eliminate IMLS” or the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the Minority Business Development Agency, the two other agencies named in the suit.

The court ordered a status report within seven days, which—despite earlier objections by the Dept. of Justice that the seven-day time restriction might prove impossible because “impediments outside Defendants’ control such as access to technology and office space may delay complete implementation, to the extent that implementation would, for example, require all employees to be back in their pre-March 14 offices by a certain date”—the administration filed on May 20. The report Indicates that IMLS staff are returning to work.

Back payments on three previously terminated FY24 Grants to States—California, Connecticut, and Washington—were reauthorized on May 1 and fully reinstated on May 5. In a statement filed on May 19, Sonderling also noted that he authorized partial FY25 payments to all state grantees, pending the agency’s apportionment from the Office of Management and Budget. The remaining grants distributed by IMLS, he added, are competitive, and “While approximately 1,200 grants were terminated pursuant to EO 14238, approximately 100 grants remained. As a result, before the issuance of the Preliminary Injunction Order, at least one competitive grant remained per statutory program, with plans to award more later this summer.” Many small and rural libraries across the country have been left without the promised reimbursement for money spent, however, and must find other funding streams to pay their bills.

COMPLIANCE WITH CAVEATS

In several points, Sonderling’s report echoed the administration’s earlier reservations about why complying with the injunction would be difficult. Adding staff back would constitute a financial burden for the agency and would require extra funding to cover, he claimed—funds cut by the administration in the federal budget bill, which passed the House by a small margin early on May 22. And because IMLS was in the process of moving to smaller headquarters, with the General Services Administration (GSA) having already canceled the lease and made plans for the former space, “Complying with the Preliminary Injunction Order will force GSA to rescind that termination, make alternative arrangements for the intended use of the space, prevent two agencies from efficiently managing their space needs, and result in taxpayers incurring costs that would otherwise have been avoided.”

Because of the terminated grants, Sonderling stated, original employee numbers would now be excessive, and “Although every effort will be made to find work to occupy those employees, bringing back all of the staff while almost half of the grants will remain terminated will result in the agency.”

In addition, he alleged that many returning IMLS employees “were actively involved in assisting the plaintiffs in related litigation in the District of Columbia, providing information to the press, and publicly disparaging those employees who remained. Returning them to the office promises to present, at best, an awkward situation and, at worst, a toxic work environment. Furthermore, given their active support of the plaintiffs, it is unclear whether those employees will be fully prepared to support the administration’s priorities for IMLS’s grant programs.”

At the same time as it addressed its ability to comply with the preliminary injunction, however, the administration also filed an appeal and requested a stay of the order pending the appeal, terming the case “overbroad” and stating that the court lacks jurisdiction over the agencies in question. The injunction, it claims, “blocks standard workforce decision-making discretion, resource allocation decision-making discretion, and discretion to issue administrative directives that the Agency Defendants, like all agencies, ought to retain.” It also cites the roadblocks noted by Sonderling in his report.

(In March, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA-9) initiated impeachment proceedings against Judge McConnell for his February ruling in State of New York v. Trump , challenging the administration’s attempt to freeze grant and loan funding.)

ALA SUIT AWAITS RULING

A concurrent lawsuit, American Library Association v. Sonderling, jointly filed by the American Library Association (ALA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), was granted a temporary restraining order on May 1 by Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A ruling on the request for a preliminary injunction in that case is expected by May 29.

As reported in Words and Money, Leon could delay his decision while waiting on a similar case that could potentially set precedent out of ALA’s favor. In Widakuswara v. Lake , a group of Voice of America (VoA) journalists sued the Trump administration over an executive order to eliminate the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the federally funded agency that supervises VoA and other overseas broadcasters.

“These developments are critical first steps in our shared goal to renew and amplify the need for IMLS after the administration’s abrupt and illegal actions eliminate it,” said ALA President Cindy Hohl in a statement. “Even as we celebrate this progress, we must remember that these wins are temporary and only as good as the extent to which they are upheld throughout the appeals process until the judge issues a ruling on the case based on its merits.”